> Maybe the "people from LibreOffice" are not voting against because, even
> though they believe there could have been better solutions, given the
> current situation they prefer that OOo is approved as a podling: see
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/5824 for
> a mor
-1
My list of 44 reasons is here:
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567
To boil it down to one: this plan as announced had several big flaws, and
they still exist.
Kind regards,
-Keith
P.S. I don't see many from LibreOffice voting against this proposal, so I
joined again to vote on their behalf
I was against this experiment since my first mail but I've reading and
learning a number of important facts since.
So I thought I would summarize the "no" vote reasons so I can
disconnect and return to my own big tasks ;-) If you've made up your
mind, plz delete as I don't want to waste any more o
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 19:17, Danese Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Well...we were thinking about adding a track at
>> http://www.transfersummit.com/BarCamp
>>
>> which is in Europe...at least.
>
> Actually there are two separate events we are considering here, a
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>> I wish the Apache org was more useful to me than just providing my HTTP
>> server.
>>
>
> It is official: Keith is a troll.
> We always have.
> Do not
He wrote this yesterday and it describes in different words why the
Apache license is not so pragmatic for LibreOffice.
The problem is, that very much of our work is inter-dependent, and we
want people to be able to work all over the code, cleaning, translating
and fixing it. It would
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> In my book, I talk for pages about the importance of the ODF standard.
>> Did you know that OpenOffice is already behind LibreOffice when it
>> comes to ODF support? It has to do with footnote markers.
>
> Which is apropos of...
ODF
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> We are now >50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a
> contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing.
>
> Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on.
I was only kidding about this bei
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:
>>
>> "The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not
>> require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the
>> same license."
>
> You are confu
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Fully disagree. I encourage you to read the terms.
>
>> -Keith
>
> - Sam Ruby
This is what the Wikipedia page on the Apache License says:
"The Apache License, like most other permissive licenses, does not
require modified versions of the softw
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> You cannot simply strip the Apache License off of the code. You must
> respect its terms.
>
> Your overall work could be GPL'd, but that one file that comes with an
> ALv2 license must continue to have that license. Stripping the header
> off o
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> There are terms about redistribution that must be respected. Please read the
> license - http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html
>
> This will help you properly research the topic as well:
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-F
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un
>
> What are you talking about? You can relicense to your hearts content. You
> just can't contribute it back under some other license otherwise user's
> couldn't use it and then relicense it. If you can't grasp that concept then
> there really is no point to further discussion.
>
Joe Shafer w
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> Please, before you post here could you get some understanding of the ASF?
> The Apache Software Foundation doesn't "pick" anything.
I realize that everyone makes their own choice, it just seems that
Java is the dominant language. Whereas
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> You have recipient and donor roles reversed. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_donor#Red_blood_cell_compatibility
>
> Search the archives for some of Sam Ruby's emails.
I learned this in 6th grade and still remember it. Anyway, th
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> We are a type-O org. Anyone can take our blood and mix it with their own.
> That "universal donor" condition places lots of restrictions on our projects,
> but somehow they manage to release useful software.
It is an interesting analogy, bu
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
> It provides over 150 other projects, all of them are useless to you ?
Yes, almost all of them are Java, and I don't have Java installed on
my laptop or server.
http://projects.apache.org/indexes/language.html
Apache is clearly useful to
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> We only benefit if the code is contributed to us, as we only accept
> voluntary contributions. Nobody is going to rifle thru LO's repository
> looking for juicy bits to snarf, we don't work like that. What we're
> hoping for is to attract d
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Look, for reasons that won't ever be aired publically, TDF
> and Oracle failed to work out amicable terms. Instead they
> worked out terms with us. We aren't all that picky about
> new initiatives, that's why we have an incubation process
> t
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Your input on apache.org lists hasn't impressed anyone with
> your general aptitude or social skill level. By all means,
> if you insist on making more juvenile remarks we will be
> delighted to serve them up to the public for as long as
> the
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
> Keith Curtis wrote on 06/05/2011 04:30:17 AM:
>
>>
>> Here is a section of my book that gives a case study on forks:
>> http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?page_id=558
>>
>> Maybe I'll make another case study about yo
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> This isn't helpful Bill IMO. Lotsa people have acculturated
> to the FSF view of software licensing, and no amount of arguing
> will change their mind.
>
>
> We have to accept that some people within libreoffice will just
> be completely turn
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
>
> others, "Free/Libre" software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work
> is ever "Free/Libre". There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought,
> and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two
> of us can.
The f
Hello all;
I spent some time reading these email archives to get a better
understanding of the issues. To me it seem obvious this effort should
join with the LibreOffice community.
Why "open source" advocates at IBM would stand up for the "right" of
software to be made proprietary in the future m
25 matches
Mail list logo
